Slashdot Mirror
Netflix Video Speed On FiOS Doubles After Netflix-Verizon Deal
An anonymous reader writes: Verizon now joins AT&T and Time Warner Cable in the list of ISPs on which Netflix streaming has significantly improved after Netflix paid for access to their networks. Ars Technica notes that "[t]he interconnection deals give Netflix a direct connection to the edge of the Internet providers' networks, bypassing congested links, but without receiving priority treatment after entering the networks." The success of these deals, however, gives the ISPs no incentive whatsoever to fix their congested links. Toll roads have, in essence, been created for the internet.
"Verizon now joins AT&T and Time Warner Cable in the list of ISPs on which Netflix streaming has significantly improved after Netflix paid for access to their networks."
Every company in that list needs a massive boycott. People need to be creating web sites showing a list of who's creating toll roads. (read: default slow lanes)
It doesn't seem bad now, but this will destroy the internet if we allow it.
Bullshit. Direct Peering agreements (as well as CDN's and caching services) have been around for over a decade and in fact do a lot to make the Internet run better for everyone. The scandal here is not the peering, but rather the fact that instead of being mutual (each side foots its own half of the bill), the ISP's are using their customers as leverage to get paid for it. That practice ought to be banned as a monopolistic and/or unfair business practice.
The summary also makes this erroneous statement:
The success of these deals, however, gives the ISPs no incentive whatsoever to fix their congested links.
When 60% of peak traffic over the edge is from Netflix, pulling all that onto a dedicated peering link in many cases means there's no longer a congestion problem. Direct Peering IS a mechanism for fixing edge congestion.
The problem is that when a company like Comcast refuses to do a mutual direct peering deal with significant traffic sources, it hurts their own users. But the users have no way to get redress or hold their ISP accountable, they can't vote with their wallets either. Netflix doesn't have the option to hold out because there are competing services- the most notable being the cable service Comcast offers. It's also important to note that Comcast also owns Content... something else which needs to be banned.
Could someone explain why all of this is an issue, when Netflix seems to be giving away their OpenConnect CDN boxes for free, so that ISPs can cache most of the Netflix traffic inside their own network?
Verizon has a competing (to some extent, anyway) video service. Their incentives have been aligned to make Netflix bad for customers.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
That is NOT how it has worked for decades. Sure there have been paid agreements, UPSTREAM, but not with ISPs, whose customers generate ALL the traffic. ISPs benefit much more from the service providers been there then the service providers themselves because without the latter there would be no need for the ISP.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
It's hilarious that no-one understands how this works. This is proof positive that this has nothing to do with net-neutrality.
Netflix chose a peer that was expensive for Verizon but cheep for Netflix. ...and for those of you wondering... these interconnect prices are virtually free on the scale Verizon and Netflix are working at. This entire thing has been a tempest in a teapot. This was about who had control over the interconnects. None of them gave a crap about the pittance it currently cost. The problem was that Netflix was trying to change the status quo and gain control over part of the network.
Verizon said No... Netflix made this big stink about net neutrality.
Verizon said no, we have our own peering, hook up to that.
Why on earth would Verizon pay a 3rd party for Netflixes interconnect?!?!
Netflix then moves the interconnect to Verizon... Of course the problem is solved!
Please don't abuse the words "by definition". Use instead something like "by their nature".
"By definition" is used when an object is identified as a member of a class by showing that object has the characteristics required for membership in the class.
A network operator isn't defined as a last mile provider if there's a traffic imbalance, and a last mile provider doesn't cease being a last mile provider if there is no traffic imbalance.
Actually settlement free peering has always existed for the last mile providors, who will ALWAYS by definition have a traffic imbalance.
Most last mile providers are tier 3 networks and purchase transit. Thats not "settlement free."
Even Comcast which is tier 2 purchase their primary transit from Tata. They don't get a free ride because they can't do the transit.
Verizon is tier 1. They dont buy transit. They do transit. You dont get to dump many times as much data on another transit network as they dump on yours without consequences. You cannot argue around this because this is the way it is, the way its been, and the way it will continue to be. The burden is on the sender because thats the only way it makes sense to do it. The receiver shouldn't be paying because they may have neither requested nor want it. A lot of people bring up the idea that netflix users "requested" the data. The internet maintains no concept of "requested." Packets are pushed through the network, not pulled.
Netflix's old ISP was Cogent. Remember the issues between Cogent and Level3 back in 2005? Netflix's current ISP, Level 3, didnt want Cogent to get a free ride and shut down the interlinks, but now that Level3 is netflix's ISP they suddenly are all for free rides with everybody? Really?
There is the way you want things to work, and the way they actually work. There is good reason for the way things actually work.
"His name was James Damore."